Holding

Section 43‑B, by virtue of its non‑obstante clause, prevails over Section 30 and remains an operative provision allowing both landlord and tenant to seek determination of reasonable rent.

Summary

The appellant, a landlady, sought determination of reasonable rent under Section 43-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, alleging that the contractual rent was inadequate. The respondents, tenants, contended that they became absolute owners of the land on the tiller's day (1 April 1957) under Sections 32 and 32‑G, and therefore the landlord could not invoke Section 43-B. The lower court ruled in favour of the tenants, but the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal remitted the matter for rent determination under Section 43-B. The High Court held that Section 43-B conflicted with Section 30 and barred the landlord’s application. The Supreme Court reversed this view, holding that the non‑obstante clause in Section 43‑B gives it precedence over Section 30 and that both landlord and tenant may apply for reasonable rent. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court to decide the remaining questions of ownership and applicability of Section 43‑A.

Issues considered

Whether Section 43-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, is barred by the saving provision of Section 30, thus preventing the landlord from applying for reasonable rent.
Whether the tenants became owners of the land on the tiller's day under Sections 32 and 32‑G, thereby terminating the tenancy.
Whether the land falls within the scope of Section 43‑A (sugarcane cultivation) making Section 43‑B applicable.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948s. 30, s. 32, s. 32-G, s. 43-A, s. 43-B

Subjects

reasonable rentnon-obstante clausetenancytiller's dayBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Actlandlord-tenant disputerent determinationSection 43-BSection 30

Judgment

LAXMI BAI SADASHIV DATE .A
l'.

ANNAPPA SIDAPPA NARGUDE & ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 1993

[M.M. PUNCHHI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.J B

Bombay· Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948:

Sections 30, 32, 32-G, 43-A and 43-B-Detennination of reasonable
rent-Invokable by and beneficial to either pany-Tenants-Whether become C
owners on Tiller's day-Matter remitted to High Court.

The appellant-landlady initiated proceedings against the Respon-
dent-tenants for determination or reasonable rent under Section 43-B or
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Respondents
claimed that they became absolute owners or the land on the tiller's day D
i.e. on 1.4.1957 by virtue of Sections 32 and 32-G of the Act. The proceed-
ings ended in favour of the Respondents. On appeal by the appellant,
Deputy Collector remitted the matter back to the first Court for determin-
ing the quantum or reasonable renL The Respondents approached the
Revenue Tribunal by way or revision, but were unsuccessful. Hence they E
approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The High Court found
that the two provisions viz. Sections 30 and 43-B were conflicting and an
application under Section 43-B did not lie in the race or the provisions or
S.30. Against the High Court's order, the landlady preferred the present
appeal.
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. The provisions or Section 43·8 or the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultdral Land Act, 1948 start with a non obstante clause and are
dependent on section 43·A. As ls plain from. its language in clause (1), the G
landlord as wen as the tenant can apply in the manner provided in the
section for having reasonable rent determined. Significantly, in order to
determine the reasonable rent the Mamlatdar to whom an application is
required to be made, is to have due regard to factors mentioned in clause
(4). Clause (4) further provides that the reasoQable rent determined by the
Mamlatdar under clause (2) shall be payable w.e.f. the date speclfled by H
215
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the Mamlatdar in that behalf and that shall be deemed to be the rent fixed
under the lease in lieu of the rent, if any, agreed between the parties. It is
thus obvious that section 43-8 is an on-going provision and not damp
squib. The object of the provision is to substitute reasonable rent in place
of the contractual rent, should there be any. It is invokable both by the
landlord as well as by the tenant. It would not be wrong to say that the
B provision is beneficial to either party. Thus the High Court was in error
in shadowing section 43-B with the provisions of section 30. (219-8-E]

2. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision on the
other two questions left undecided. It is left to the High Court to decide
C whether it would like to await the decision of the Aval Karkun on the
question of reasonable rent and then decided the matter before it or shall
it go ahead with the decision of the petition by itself letting the question
of reasonableness of the rent to take its own course. In either situation the
High Court has the discretion but somewhere it bas to have a conDuencing
point. (219-F-H; 220-A-B]
D
CIVIL APPELL.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 848 of
1973.

From the Judgment and order dated 27th June, 1972 of the Bombay
High Court in Special Civil Application No.1804 of 1968.
E.
V.N. Ganpule, Mrs. Punam Kumari and J.S. Wad for the Appellant.

P.H. Parekh for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court
of Bombay dated 27th June, 1972 passed in special civil application No.
1804 of 1968. •·

The appellant herein has claimed herself to be the landlady of a
G parcel of land in a village in District Kolhapur, Maharashtra, details of
which are available in the Judgment under appeal. The respondents are
tenants thereon under a very old document of lease. Proceedings started
between the two, in the fir~t instance in the Court of Awai Karkun, the
appellant herein claiming that the contractual rent was :in-adequate and
H that reasonable rent be determined under section 43-B of tombay Tenancy
L.B. SADASHIV v. A.S. NARGUDE 217

and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The claim was asserted on the founcia- A
tional fact that the lease granted in favour of the respondent was for
cultivation of sugarcane or for growing of fruits and flowers as covered
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 43-A of the said Act. The
respondents resisted the proceedings claiming inter alia that they had
become the owners of the land on the tiller's day i.e. on 1.4.1957 by virtue
of sections 32 and 32-G of the said Act. The first Court of Awai Karkun
B
: decided in favour of the respondents and dismissed the petition holding
that the respondents have become owners of the land on the Tiller's day.
The Appellate Court of the Dy. Collector however held otherwise on
appeal by the appellant and remitted the matter back to the Awai Karkun
for determining the quantum of reasonable rent in accordance with ·the c
provisions of section 43-B of the Act. Now, it was the turn of the respon-
dents to take up the matter before the revising authority, that is the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, who did not interfere in the Views of the
Dy. Collector. This gave cause to the respondents to approach the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution whereat three points were
D
raised which may b.e enumerated as follows:
·'
"(1) The Dy. Collector of the Tribunal erred in law in holding that
although the land was in fact the' jirayat land on the tiller:s day,
the tenants did not become owners on the tiller's day.
E
(2) The Dy. Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
erred in law holding that the land was for the purpose of sugarcane
cultivation within the meaning of section 43-A (i) (b) of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act; and ·':..·

(3) That even if section 43-A applied to the land, the landlord F
could not apply for fixing the reasonable land under section 43-B
so as to enhance the rent which was fixed under original Mirashi
Patra."

The High Court ruled in favour of the respondents only the third
contention viewing that decision on the other contentions was unnecessary.
G
In order to upset the views of the Dy. Collector and the Tribunal on the
third contention, stress was laid by the High Court on section 30 of the Act
which provides as follows:

"Save as provided in this Act, the rights or privileges of any tenant H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A under usage or 1aw for the time being in force o~ arising out of
any contract, grant, decree or Order of a Court or otherwise
howsoever shall not be limited or ab~idged."

Section 43-B reads as follows:

B "Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a court
or any other authority, in the case of any land to which Section
43-A applies, the rent payable shall be reasonable rent as deter-
mined und~r the following clauses :-

(1) A landlord or a tent of such land may take an application in
c writing to the Mamlatdar for determination of the reasonable rent
in respect of such land.

(2) On receipt of such application, the Mamlatdar shall give notice
thereof to the other party to the lease and after holding an inquiry
shall determine the reasonable rent.
D
(3) In determining the reasonable rent regard shall be had to the
following factors.

(a) profits of agriculture of similar lands in the locality.
B (b) prices in the locality of the particular crop for the growing
of which the land is leased.

(c) the improvements made in the land by the lessee or the
landlord.
F
(d) the assessment payable in respect of land.

(e) the profits realised by the lessee on account of the lease
of the land.

G (f) profits earned by an industrial or commercial undertaking
by the manufacture or sale of articles made out of the
produce of the land leased.

(g) such other factors as may be prescribed.
'1

H (4) The reasonable rent determined by the Mamlatdar .under
L.B. SADASHIV v. A.S. NARGUDE 219

clause (2) shall, with effect from, 1 (the date specified by the A
Mamlatdar) in that behalf, be deemed to be the rent fixed under
the lease in lieu qf the rent, if any, agreed between the parties".

The High Court found the two provisions to be conflicting and
viewed that an application under section 43-B did not lie in face of the B
provisions of section 30. We, on our part, can hardly see any justification
for such a view when the provisions of section 43-B start with a non
obstante clause and are dependent on section 43-A. As is plain from its
language in clause (1), both the landlord as well as the tenant can apply in
the manner provided for having reasonable rent determined. Significantly,
in order to determine the reasonable rent the Mamlatdar to whom an C
application is required to be made, is to have due regard to factors
mentioned in clause (4). Clause (4) further provides that the reasonable
rent determined by the Mamlatdar under clause (2) shall be payable w.e.f.
the date specified by the Mamlatdar in that behalf and that shall be deemed
to be the rent fixed under the lease in lieu of the rent, if any, agreed D
between the parties. It is thus obvious that section 43-B is an on-going
provision and not a damp squib. The object of the provision is to substitute
reasonable rent in place of the contractual rent, should there be any. It is
invokable both by the landlord as well as by the tenant. It would not be
wrong to say that the provision is beneficial to either party. Thus it seems
to us that the High Court was in error in shadowing section 43-B with the E
provisions of section 30. The provisions of section 43-B start with a non
obstante clause and of section 30 barely with a saving clause. The former
provision obviously has an element of predomenancy. Therefore on coming
to the view that the High Court was in error in upholding the third
objection raised before it, we upset its judgment and order and remit the F
matter back to it for decision on the other two questions, left undecided.

As is evident from the fact narration there has been a split in some
ways but the twain must meet. As per the decision of the Tribunal and the
Deputy Collector and matter stands remitted back to the Awai Karkun for
deciding the quantum of reasonable rent on the basis that the respondents G
have not become owners of the land on tile tiller's day and the tenancy was
subsisting in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 43-A. These
are the two subjects on which objection was raised before the High Court.
It is thus left to the High Court to decide whether it would like to await
the decision of the Aval Karkun on the question of reasonable rent and H
·220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A then decide the matter before it or shall it go ahead with the decision of
the petition by itself letting the question of reasonableness of the rent to
take its own course. In either situation the High Court has the discretion
but as said earlier somewhere it has to have a confluencing point.
. .
Having observed so we allow this appeal on the above terms but
B without any order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

.,.